"Taxpayer" v. "Nontaxpayer"-Which one are You?
SOURCEGreat IRS Hoax, section 5.3.1

Related articles:

"The taxpayer-- that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
[President Ronald W. Reagan ]

The word “taxpayer” is defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14)  and 26 U.S.C. 1313  as someone who is “liable for” and “subject to” the income tax in Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > 7701
7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(14) Taxpayer

The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

The “person” they are referring to above is further characterized as a “citizen of the United States” or “resident of the United States” (alien).  The tax is not on nonresident aliens, but on their INCOME, therefore they cannot lawfully be “taxpayers”:



PART 1_INCOME TAXES--Table of Contents

Sec.  1.1-1  Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule.

(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

What “U.S. citizens” and “U.S. residents” share in common is a domicile on federal territory that is no part of the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union.  Collectively, they are called “U.S. persons” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30).  Remember:

“U.S. person=domicile or residence on federal territory and not any state of the Union”

The “United States” they mean in the term “U.S. citizen” is defined as federatl territories and possessions in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)  and 4 U.S.C. 110(d) and nowhere includes any state of the Union because they are sovereign and foreign in respect to the federal government.  In that sense, income taxes are a franchise tax associated with the domicile/protection franchise.

"Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located."
[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]

"domicileA person's legal home.  That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning.  Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310m 213 A.2d 94.  Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein.  The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere.  A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile.  The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]

Those who don’t want to pay the tax or be “taxpayers” simply don’t partake of the government protection franchise and instead declare themselves as “nonresidents” with no “residence” or “permanent address” within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority on every government form they fill out.  That is why “nonresident aliens” cannot be “taxpayers”.  For further details, see:

Why Domicile and Becoming a "Taxpayer" Require Your Consent, Form #05.002


The IRS refers to everyone as “taxpayers” because making this usually false presumption against innocent “nontaxpayers” is how they recruit new “taxpayers”.  Here is the way one of our readers describes how he reacts to being habitually and falsely called “taxpayer” by the IRS:

I refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue officer to call me or any client a "taxpayer". Just because I may look like one or have the attributes of one does not necessarily make me one. To one IRS lady, and I have no reason to doubt that she fits this category, I use the following example. "Miss you have all of the equipment to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption." Until it is proven by a preponderance of evidence I must assume you are a lady and you will be treated as such. Please have the same respect for me, and don't slander my reputation and defame my character by calling me a whore for the government, which is what a "taxpayer" is.

[Eugene Pringle]

Funny!  But guess what?  This is not a new idea.  We refer you to the Bible book of Revelations, Chapter 17, which describes precisely who this whore or harlot is: Babylon the Great!  Check out that chapter, keeping in mind that “Babylon the Great” is symbolic of the city full of all the ignorant and idolatrous people who have unwittingly made themselves into government whores by becoming surety for government debts in the pursuit of taxable government privileges and benefits they didn’t need to begin with.  The Bible describes these harlots and adulterers below:

“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship [and citizenship] with the world [and the governments/states of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” 
[James 4:4 , Bible, NKJV]

“When thou sawest a thief [the IRS] then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.” 
[Ps 50:18, Bible, NKJV ]

“Where do wars and fights [and tyranny and oppression] come from among you?  Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [pursuit of government “privileges”] that war in your members?….You ask [from your government and its THIEF the IRS] and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your own pleasures.  Adulterers and adulteresses [and HARLOTS]!  Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” 
[James 4:3-4, Bible, NKJV]

These “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” idolaters have made government their new pagan god (neo-god), their friend, and their source of false man-made security.  That is what the “Security” means in “Social Security”.  The bible mentions that there is something “mysterious” about “Babylon the Great Harlot”:

[Rev. 17:5, Bible, NKJV]



[Washington, D.C.]

The federal government announced today that it is changing its emblem from an eagle to a condom, because that more clearly reflects its political stance.  A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while it's actually screwing you.

[SOURCE:  http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Humor/NewGovSymbol.jpg]

The mystery about this harlot/adulterous woman described in Rev. 17:5  is symbolic of the ignorance and apathy that these people have about the law and their government.  For a fascinating read into this subject, we refer you to the free book on the internet entitled Babylon the Great is Falling referred to us by one of our readers:

The IRS DOES NOT have the authority conferred by law under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code to bestow the status of “taxpayer” on any natural person who doesn’t first volunteer for that “distinctive” title.  Below are some facts confirming this:

1. There is no statute making anyone liable for the income tax.  Therefore, the only way you can become subject is by volunteering.  Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code  is therefore “private law” and “special law” that only applies to those who individually consent by connecting their earnings to a “trade or business”, which is a “public office” in the United States government.  These people are referred to in the Treasury Regulations as “effectively connected with a trade or business”.  BEFORE they consent, they are called "nontaxpayers".  AFTER they consent, they are called "taxpayers".

"To the extent that regulations implement the statute, they have the force and effect of law...The regulation implements the statute and cannot vitiate or change the statute..."
[Spreckles v. C.I.R.,119 F.2d, 667]

"..liability for taxation must clearly appear[from statute imposing tax]."
[Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)]

While Congress might have the power to place such a personal liability upon trust beneficiaries who did not renounce the trust, yet it would require clear expression of such intent, and it cannot be spelled out from language (as that here) which can be given an entirely natural and useful meaning and application excluding such intent."

[Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)]

"A tax is a legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin (37 Cyc. 724, 725), and, naturally, liability to taxation must be read in statute, or it does not exist."

[Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927)]

"…the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability." 

[Terry  v. Bothke, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)]

If you want to know more about this subject see:

1.1. Section ‎5.6.1 of the Great IRS Hoax, which covers the subject of no liability in excruciating detail:

1.2  The following link:

1.3  Sections ‎5.4.6 through ‎ of the Great IRS Hoax prove that the Internal Revenue Code is “private law” and a private contract/agreement.  Those who have consented are called “taxpayers” and those who haven’t are called “nontaxpayers”.

2. The federal courts agree that the IRS cannot involuntarily make you into a "taxpayer" when they stated the following:

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..."

[ Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]

3. IRS has no statutory authority to convert employment withholding taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle C into “income taxes” under I.R.C. Subtitle A.  We show later in section ‎5.6.8 that employment withholding taxes deducted under the authority of Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code using a W-4 voluntary withholding agreement and that the IRS  classifies them in IRS document 6209 as “Tax Class 5”, which is “Estate and gift taxes”.  Therefore, they are gifts to the U.S. government, not taxes that may not be enforced.  We also show in section ‎5.6.8 that taxes paid under the authority of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code are classified as Tax Class 2, “Individual Income Tax”.  We also exhaustively prove with evidence later in section ‎5.6.16 that IRS has no statutory or regulatory authority to convert what essentially amounts to a voluntary “gift” paid through withholding to a “tax”.  Only you can do that by assessing yourself.  That is why the 1040 form requires that you attach the information returns to it, such as the W-2:  So that the gift and the tax are reconciled and so that the accuracy of the W-2, which is unsigned hearsay evidence, is guaranteed by the penalty of perjury signature on the 1040 form itself.

The consequence of the IRS not having any lawful authority to make anyone into a “taxpayer” is that they cannot do a lawful Substitute For Return (SFR) or penalty assessment under I.R.C. Subtitle A, as you will learn later.  This is also confirmed by the following document:

Why the Government Can't Lawfully Assess Human Beings With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent, Form #05.011


If you have been the victim of an involuntary IRS assessment and do a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for assessment documents as we have, and you examine all of the documents returned, you will not see even one document signed by any IRS employee that purports to be an assessment and which has your name on it as the only subject of the assessment.  The reason they won’t sign the assessment document, such as the 23C or the RACS 006 report, under penalty of perjury is that no one is STUPID enough to accept legal liability for violating the Constitution and the rights of those they have done wrongful assessments against.  The IRS knows these people are involved in wrongdoing, which is why they assign “pseudo names” (false names) to their employees: To protect them from lawsuits against them for their habitual violation of the law.   The documents you will get back from the IRS in response to your FOIA include the following forms, none of which are signed by the IRS employee:

1. Form 886-A: Explanation of Terms

2. Form 1040: Substitute For Return (SFR)

3. Form 3198: Special Handling Notice

4. Form 4549: Income Tax Examination Changes

5. Form 4700:  Examination Work Papers

6. Form 5344: Examination Closing Record

7. Form 5546: Examination Return Charge-Out

8. Form 5564: Notice of Deficiency Waiver

9. Form 5600: Statutory Notice Worksheet

10. Form 12616: Correspondence Examination History Sheet

11. Form 13496: IRC Section 6020(b) Certification

If you want to look at samples of the above forms, see section 6 of the link below, under the column "Examples":

We have looked at hundreds of these assessment documents and every one of them is required  by 26 U.S.C. 6065 to be signed under penalty of perjury by the IRS employee who prepared them but none are.  As a matter of fact, the examination documents prepared by the IRS Examination Branch to do the illegal Substitute for Returns (involuntary assessments) purport to be a “proposal” rather than an involuntary assessment, have no signature of an IRS employee, and the only signature is from the “taxpayer”, who must consent to the assessment in order to make it lawful.  See, for instance, IRS Forms 4549 and 5564.  What they do is procure the consent invisibly using a commercial default process by ignoring your responsive correspondence, and therefore “assume” that you consented.  This, ladies and gentlemen, is constructive FRAUD, not justice.  It is THEFT!  The Form 12616 above is the vehicle by which they show that the “taxpayer” consented to the involuntary assessment, because they can’t do ANYTHING without his consent.

Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. 2201  also removes the authority of federal courts to declare the status of “taxpayer” on a sovereign American also!:

United States Code




Sec. 2201. Creation of remedy

(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(10) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

(b) For limitations on actions brought with respect to drug patents see section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The federal courts themselves agree that they do not have the jurisdiction to bestow the status of “taxpayer” upon someone who is a “nontaxpayer”:

"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..." 
[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d.18 (1939)]

26 U.S.C. 1461 is the only statute within the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A which creates an explicit liability or “legal duty”.  That duty is enforceable only against those subject to the I.R.C., who are “taxpayers” with “gross income” above the exemption amount identified in 26 U.S.C. 6012.  All amounts reported by third parties on Information Returns, such as the W-2, 1042-S, 1098, and 1099, document receipt of “trade or business” earnings.  All “trade or business” earnings, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26), are classified as “gross income”.  A nonresident alien who has these information returns  filed against him or her becomes his or her own “withholding agent”, and must reconcile their account with the federal government annually by filing a tax return.  This is a requirement of all those who are engaged in a “public office”, which is a type of business partnership with the federal government.  That business relationship is created through the operation of private contract and private law between you, the natural person, and the federal government.  The method of consenting to that contract is any one of the following means:

1. Assessing ourselves with a liability shown on a tax return.

2. Voluntarily signing a W-4, which is identified in the regulations as an “agreement” to include all earnings in the context of that agreement as “gross income” on a 1040 tax return.  See 26 C.F.R. 31.3402(p)-1(a).  For a person who is not a “public official” or engaged in a “public office”, the signing of the W-4 essentially amounts to an agreement to procure “social services” and “social insurance”.  You must bribe the Beast with over half of your earnings in order to convince it to take care of you in your old age.

3. Completing, signing, and submitting an IRS form 1040 or 1040NR and indicating a nonzero amount of “gross income”.  Nearly all “gross income” and all information returns is connected with an excise taxable activity called a “trade or business” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 871(b)  and 26 U.S.C. 6041, which activity then makes you into a “resident”.  See older versions of  26 C.F.R. 301.7701-5:


4. Filing information returns on ourself or not rebutting information returns improperly filed against us, such as the W-2, 1042-S, 1098, and 1099.  Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6041(a), all of these federal forms associate all funds documented on them with the taxable activity called a “trade or business”.  If you are not a “public officer”, then you can’t lawfully earn “trade or business” income.  See the following for details:

4.1. 26 U.S.C. 6041.

4.2. The Trade or Business Scam, Form #05.001:

4.3.Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001:

4.4. Correcting Erroneous IRS Form 1042’s, Form #04.003: 

4.5.Correcting Erroneous IRS Form 1098’s, Form #04.004:

4.6.Correcting Erroneous IRS form 1099’s, Form #04.005:

4.7.Correcting Erroneous IRS Form W-2's, Form #04.006:

5. Allowing Currency Transaction Reports (CTR’s), IRS Form 8300, to be filed against us when we withdraw 10,000 or more in cash from a financial institution.  The statutes at 31 U.S.C. 5331  and the regulation at  31 C.F.R. 103.30(d)(2) only require these reports to be filed in connection with a “trade or business”, and this “trade or business” is the same “trade or business” referenced in the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26)  and  26 U.S.C. 162.  If you are not a “public official” or if you do not consent to be treated as one in order to procure “social insurance”, then banks and financial institutions are violating the law to file these forms against you.  See:

Demand for Verified Evidence of Trade or Business Activity: Currency Transaction Report, Form #04.008

6. Completing and submitting the Social Security Trust document, which is the SS-5 form.  This is an agreement that imposes the “duty” or “fiduciary duty” upon the natural person and makes him into a “trustee” and an officer of a the federal corporation called the “United States”.  The definition of “person” for the purposes of the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, codified in 26 U.S.C. 7343, incidentally is EXACTLY the same as the above.  Therefore, all tax crimes require that the violator must be acting in a fiduciary capacity as a Trustee of some kind or another, whether it be as an Executor over the estate of a deceased “taxpayer”, or over the Social Security Trust maintained for the benefit of a living trustee/employee of the federal corporation called the “United States Government”.  See the following for details:

Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee

Unless and until we do any of the above, our proper title is “nontaxpayer”.  The foundation of American Jurisprudence is the presumption that we are “innocent until proven guilty”, which means that we are a “nontaxpayer” until the government proves with court-admissible evidence signed under penalty of perjury that we are a “taxpayer” who is participating in government franchises that are subject to the excise tax upon a “trade or business” which is described in I.R.C. Subtitle A.   For cases dealing with the term "nontaxpayer" see: Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 (1922); Rothensis v. Ullman, 110 F.2d. 590(1940); Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d. 620 (1952); Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d. 45 (1962); Economy Plumbing & Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585 (1972); and South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984).

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

"The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital."

[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 @ 238(1922)]

Since the above ruling, Congress has added new provisions to the I.R.C. which obtusely mention “nontaxpayers”, but not by name, because they don’t want people to have a name to describe their proper status.  The new provision is found in 26 U.S.C. 7426, and in that provision of the I.R.C., “nontaxpayers” are referred to as “Persons other than taxpayers”.  So far as we know, this is the ONLY provision within the I.R.C. that provides any remedy or standing to a “nontaxpayer”.

The behavior of the IRS confirms the above conclusions.  See the following IRS internal memo proving that a return that is signed under penalty of perjury and saying “not liable” or words to that effect is treated as a non-return:

Look what the above internal top secret IRS memo says (are they trying to hide something?.. cover-up and obstruction of justice!).  Pay particular attention to the use of the word “taxpayer” in this excerpt which, by the way, doesn’t include most people:

“A taxpayer can also negate the penalties of perjury statement with an addition. In Schmitt v. U.S., 140 B.R. 571 (Bank W.D. Okl. 1992), the taxpayers filed a return with the following statement at the end of the penalties of perjury statement, "SIGNED UNDER DURESS, SEE STATEMENT ATTACHED." In the addition, the taxpayers denied liability for tax on wages. The Service argued that the statement, added to the "return", qualified the penalties of perjury statement, thus making the penalties of perjury statement ineffective and the return a nullity. Id. at 572.

In agreeing with the Service, the court pointed out that the voluntary nature of our tax system requires the Service to rely on a taxpayer’s self-assessment and on a taxpayer’s assurance that the figures supplied are true to the best of his or her knowledge. Id. Accordingly, the penalties of perjury statement has important significance in our tax system. The statement connects the taxpayer’s attestation of tax liability (by the signing of the statement) with the Service’s statutory ability to summarily assess the tax.

Similarly, in Sloan v. Comm’r, 53 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 897 (1995), the taxpayers submitted a return containing the words "Denial & Disclaimer attached as part of this form" above their signatures. In the addition, the taxpayers denied liability for any individual income tax. In determining the effect of the addition on the penalties of perjury statement, the court reasoned that it is a close question whether the addition negates the penalties of perjury statement or not. The addition, according to  the court, could be read just to mean that the taxpayers reserve their right to renew their constitutional challenge to the federal income tax law. However, the court concluded that the addition negated the penalties of perjury statement. Id. at 800.

In both Schmitt and Sloan the court questioned the purpose of the addition. Both courts found that the addition of qualifying language was intended to deny tax liability. Accordingly, this effect rendered the purported returns invalid.”

The reason is clear:  If you are a “nontaxpayer” who is “not liable”, then you essentially are outside their jurisdiction and can’t even ask for a refund of the money you paid in.  All of your property is consequently classified as a “foreign estate”, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31):

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

(a)(31) Foreign estate or trust

(A) Foreign estate

The term ''foreign estate'' means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

If you indeed are a “nontaxpayer” and act like one, the IRS will pretend like you don’t even exist, that is, until in their ignorance and greed they try years later to go after you wrongfully and unlawfully for willful failure to file, notice of deficiency, or some other contrived nonsense to terrorize you into paying and filing again.  That’s how they make “nontaxpayers” “volunteer” into becoming “taxpayers”: with terrorism and treason against the rights of sovereign Americans, starting with “mailing threatening, false, and harassing communications” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876.  Lawyer hypocrites!  Jesus was right!

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.  These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”
[Matt. 23:23, Bible]

Now that we understand the difference between “taxpayer” and a “nontaxpayer”, allow us to make a very critical distinction that is the Achilles Heel of the IRS fraud.  Ponder for a moment in your mind the following very insightful question:

“Is a person in law always either a ‘taxpayer’ or a ‘nontaxpayer’ as a whole?  Can a person simultaneously be BOTH?”

Once you understand the answer to this crucial question, you will understand how to get your money back in an IRS refund claim without litigating!  The answer, by the way, is YES!  Let us now explain why this is the case.

We said above that if you are a “nontaxpayer”, the IRS will basically try to completely ignore your refund claim and you are lucky if they even respond.  At worst, they will illegally try to penalize you and at best, they will ignore you.  We must remember, however, that it is “taxable income” that makes you a “taxpayer”.  “Taxable income” is “gross income” minus “deductions”, as described in 26 U.S.C. 63(a).  Therefore, we must earn “gross income” as legally defined in order to have “taxable income”.  One cannot earn “gross income” unless they fit into one of the following categories:

1. Domestic taxable activities:  Activities within the “United States”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d) as the District of Columbia and territories and possessions of the United States.

1.1. Federal “Employees”, Agencies, and “Public Officials” – meaning those who are federal “public officers”, federal “employees”, and elected officials of the national government.  This is one reason why 26 U.S.C. 6331(a)  lists only federal officers, federal employees, federal instrumentalities, and elected officials as ones who can be served with a levy upon their compensation, which is actually a payment from the federal government.

1.2. Federal benefit recipients.  These people are receiving “social insurance” payments such as Medicare, Social Security, or Unemployment.  These benefits are described as “gross income” in 26 U.S.C. 871(a)(3).  When they signed up for these programs, they became “trustees”, “employees”, and instrumentalities of the U.S. government.  They are described as “federal personnel” in the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(13).  Neither the Constitution nor the Social Security Act authorize these benefits to be offered to anyone domiciled outside of federal territories and possessions.  For details on this scam, see:

Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee


1.3. Those who operate in a representative capacity in behalf of the federal government via contract.   This includes those who have a valid Taxpayer Identification Number, which constitutes a constructive trust contract with the federal government and use that federal property [number] as per 20 C.F.R. 422.103(d) .  They are identified as federal trustees and/or federal employees as referenced in 20 C.F.R. “Employee Benefits”.  For details on this scam, see:

Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee


2. Foreign taxable activities:  Activities in the states of the Union or abroad.

2.1. Domiciliaries of the federal zone abroad and in a foreign country pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 911 who are engaged in a “trade or business”:

2.1.1. Statutory “U.S. citizens” - those are federal statutory creations of Congress and defined specifically at 8 U.S.C. 1401  to be those who were born in a U.S. territory or possession AND who have a legal domicile there.

2.1.2. Statutory “Residents” (aliens).   These are foreign nationals who have a legal domicile within the District of Columbia or a federal territory or possession.  They are defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(A)  and 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(2).

If you would like to know more about why the above are the only foreign subjects of taxation, see:

Why domicile and becoming a "taxpayer" require your consent, Form #05.002


2.2. States of the Union.  Neither the IRS nor the Social Security Administration may lawfully operate outside of the federal zone.  See:

2.2.1. 4 U.S.C. 72 limits all “public offices” to the District of Columbia.  It says that the “public offices” that are the subject of the tax upon a “trade or business” must be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, except as expressly provided by law.

2.2.2. 26 U.S.C. 7601 limits IRS enforcement to internal revenue districts.  The President is authorized to establish internal revenue districts pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7621, but he delegated that authority to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Executive Order 10289.  Treasury Order 150-02, signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, says that the only remaining internal revenue district is in the District of Columbia.  It eliminated all the other internal revenue districts. 

2.2.3. 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d) define the term “United States” as the District of Columbia and the territories and possiessions of the United States.  Nowhere anyplace else is the tax described in Subtitle A expanded to include anyplace BUT the “United States”.

2.2.4. The U.S. Supreme Court said Congress enjoys NO LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION within states of the Union and the Internal Revenue Code is “legislation”.

“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 364H247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.“ 

[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]

"The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra."

[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513; 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)]

2.2.5. The U.S. Supreme Court said Congress Cannot establish a “trade or business’ in a state and tax it.  A “trade or business” is the main subject of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.  See the following court cite:

“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.

But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.

[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

Based on options above, most people do not have “gross income” as legally defined, and they are actually deceiving the government if they put anything but zero on their income tax return.  Because none of the earnings of the typical person who is employed in the private sector can legally be classified as either “income” or “gross income”, what you put down for “gross income” on your tax return boils down to the question of:

“How much of my receipts do I want to ‘volunteer’ or ‘elect’ or ‘choose’ to call ‘income’ or ‘gross income’ for the purposes of federal taxes?”

How you choose to answer that question then determines the net “donation” (not “tax”, but “donation”) you are making to the federal government based on the tax rate schedule that your fictitious and fabricated “gross income” falls into.  As we said at the beginning of this chapter in section 5.1.4, the income tax is “voluntary” and we really meant it!  Not only that, but the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with us!

“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not distraint.”
[Flora v. U.S.,  362 U.S. 145 (1960)]

Returning to our original question, then, “Can a person be simultaneously BOTH a ‘taxpayer’ and a ‘nontaxpayer’?”, the answer is YES.  Why?  Because so long as we as biological people aren’t “employees” (synonymous with "public officers" of the U.S. government) any amount we put down for “gross income” on our tax return is a voluntary choice and not REAL “gross income” as legally defined.  That amount, and ONLY that amount, which we volunteer to define as “gross income” on our tax return makes us a into a “taxpayer”, but only for the specific sources of revenue we voluntarily identified as “gross income”!  All other monies that we earned are, by definition and implication, not taxable and not “gross income”, which means that for those “sources” of revenue that are not “gross income”, we are a “nontaxpayer” and NOT a “taxpayer”.

So when someone asks you if you are a “taxpayer”, both the question and your answer must be put in the context of a specific source of income.  You should respond by first asking: “for which revenue source?”  The answer can seldom be a general “yes” or “no” for ALL RECEIPTS.  Consequently, if we put down one cent for “gross income” on our tax return, then ONLY for that source of revenue do we become “taxpayers”.  All other sources of revenue for us are, by implication, NOT either “gross income” or “taxable income”, which means that for those revenues and receipts, we are a “nontaxpayer”.  Furthermore, once we make the determination of “gross income” and self-assessment on the tax return that only we can file on ourselves, the IRS has NO AUTHORITY to make us into a “taxpayer” or assess us an involuntary liability associated with any receipts other than those that we specifically identify as “gross income”:

"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance". 
[Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)]

Remember, the only amount we are responsible for paying is the amount we assess ourselves that appears on a tax return that ONLY WE FILL OUT.  The Internal Revenue Manual section (OFFSITE LINK) confirms that the IRS is NOT AUTHORIZED to do a Substitute For Return (SFR) on our behalf for the IRS Form 1040 or any of its derivatives (e.g. 1040X, 1040EZ, 1040NR, etc).  Furthermore, 26 C.F.R. 1.6151-1  confirms that you are only responsible for paying the amount shown on a return (because it says “shall pay”). 

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 26, Volume 12]

[Revised as of April 1, 2002]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 26CFR1.6151-1]

 [Page 980]




Procedure and Administration--Table of Contents

Sec. 1.6151-1  Time and place for paying tax shown on returns.


    (a) In general. Except as provided in section 6152 and paragraph (b) of this section, the tax shown on any income tax return shall, without assessment or notice and demand, be paid to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the time fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return). For provisions relating to the time for filing income tax returns, see section 6072 and Secs. 1.6072-1 to 1.6072-4, inclusive. For provisions relating to the place for filing income tax returns, see section 6091 and Secs. 1.6091-1 to 1.6091-4, inclusive.

    (b)(1) Returns on which tax is not shown. If a taxpayer files a return and in accordance with section 6014 and the regulations thereunder, elects not to show the tax on the return, the amount of tax determined to be due shall be paid within 30 days after the date of mailing to the taxpayer a notice stating the amount payable and making demand upon the taxpayer therefor. However, if the notice is mailed to the taxpayer more than 30 days before the due date of the return, payment of the tax shall not be required prior to such due date.

26 U.S.C. 6020(b) does not authorize the IRS to do an assessment on you because only you (as the “sovereign”) can do an assessment on yourself for a voluntary donation program called the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A.  The only exception to this rule is under 26 U.S.C. 6014, where you can delegate to the IRS the authority to do a return on your behalf, which we don’t recommend.  Are you beginning to see through the fog?  It took us four years of diligent study to figure this scam out and we are trying to save you some time.

How do we apply this wonderful new discovery to the pursuit of an administrative refund of monies paid into the IRS using a request for refund?  First of all, we already established earlier in this section that if you put zero on your return for “gross income”, the IRS will basically treat you as a “nontaxpayer” in entirety and either ignore you completely or try to penalize you illegally as we indicated earlier in section 5.4.10.  See the discussion of the IRS internal memo earlier in this section for details.  But what if we put down one red cent as “gross income”, then we are “taxpayers” but at the same time the IRS is not authorized to assess us a greater liability.  They will try to propose a corrected return amount and act like they have the authority to assess  you a greater amount, but we know that they can’t.  They may also threaten a penalty if you don’t go along with their proposed new assessment, but this is a fraud too because penalties imposed without a judicial trial are a Bill of Attainder that is prohibited by the Constitution.  The way to prevent them scamming us when we use this technique to get our money back is to clarify on our administrative refund request the following facts, which completely ties their hands to do anything BUT refund all the money you paid in mistakenly or under duress.  The below qualification that you can add to your refund request will completely tie the IRS’ hands and back them into a corner so that they have no choice but to give you a refund and not penalize you.  It uses their own rules and guidance against them so they cannot ignore your filing but also can’t get any more money out of you than you volunteer to pay:

1. This return constitutes a “conditional self-assessment”.  I am only indicating a nonzero “gross income” in order to procure a refund of all taxes paid over the period in question.  I do not, in fact, make any “gross income” as legally defined but am electing to say that I have “gross income” in order to compel you to process my “return” and provide a refund of all taxes paid.  In the past, I have filed “zero returns” and have found that they were ignored because I was not a “taxpayer” so that you had no jurisdiction to respond.  Now, I am claiming that I have only one cent of “taxable income” and “gross income” so that you can no longer ignore my return or claim you have no jurisdiction.

2. In the event that the refund requested is not obtained, this conditional self-assessment and attached return is null and void in its entirety ab initio (from the beginning) because only a voluntarily executed return submitted absent duress or compulsion is valid and admissible as evidence according to the Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).  However, you should keep a copy of the return in your records as proof that I filed “something” so that the statute of limitations clock starts for all criminal and civil issues.  The only thing that has to appear on the return is a signature under penalty of perjury, which it has, in order to be considered a valid filing according to the federal courts.

3. The attached tax return and any determinations by the IRS that are based on it is false, fraudulent, incorrect, and involuntarily submitted if anything on it is changed or altered in any way by either me or the IRS or if the IRS proposes or makes without my written, explicit consent, any change in the assessment appearing on the return or in their computer system.  That means you can’t alter the IMF to be inconsistent with what appears on my return or alter the return itself.  That is why my return is submitted in pen.  In effect, I am delegating VERY SPECIFIC authority to only process the return AS IS with NO CHANGES and no penalties or to withdraw the return from processing but not entry into my IRS administrative file.

4. The IRS does not have my permission or consent to do any of the following without my explicit written and notarized consent, and if it does, I withdraw my consent and my self assessment and change the value of “gross income” on the return to zero

4.1. Propose an amended assessment or execute a “Substitute For Return” (SFR).

4.2. Correct anything appearing on this return.

4.3. Enter anything appearing on this return into any kind of information system.

4.4. Share any of the information provided to any agency, person, government organization, or private party who is outside of the IRS and not directly involved in processing this request for refund.

5. I am not now and never have been an “employee” as defined or used in 26 U.S.C. 6331, 26 U.S.C. 3401(c ), or 26 C.F.R. 31.3401(c )-1.

6. Any reports of “income” or “wages” provided to you by banks or employers on forms W-2 and 1099 and associated with the SSN attached to my name are hereby declared and presumed to be incorrect, fraudulent, and may not be relied upon as a basis for good faith belief, because they:

6.1. Are not signed

6.2. Are not submitted under penalty of perjury.

6.3. Are hearsay evidence.

6.4. Are only lawfully required in the case of “employees” under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, which I just declared in the previous item I am not.  

6.5. Are a violation of the Privacy Act, because when private employers illegally volunteer to act as agents of the federal government under the color of law, they are also bound to comply with other laws relating to federal agencies, including the Privacy Act.  They in effect become a voluntary federal agency under the color of law in processing federal forms.  The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a  says that agencies may not provide Privacy Act information to other federal agencies unless authorized by the employee and as required by law in the performance of their lawful functions.  Because they are not located on federal property and federal criminal statutes under 18 USC and civil statues under 26 U.S.C. do not apply outside of federal property, then they have no jurisdiction as federal agents or “federal police” to be involved in any kind of “police power” enforcement activity related to tax collection.

These financial forms therefore create false presumptions on your part about me that are completely incorrect, unauthorized by law, and which I never consented or authorized my bank voluntarily to provide to you or about me.

7. The number attached to my name which you call a Social Security Number, is NOT MY number.  To be MY number, I have to request it and consent to using it.  Since I didn’t apply for this number and my parents did without my consent, and since I use it under unlawful duress and compulsion from both government and financial institutions, then I cannot and should not be held responsible for using or correctly specifying that which is not “mine”.  Do not attempt to refer to that number as “taxpayer identification number”, because it can only be so if I am a “taxpayer”, which I am not for all but one red (communist) cent of monies received which I have elected to call “gross income” for the purposes of obtaining a refund.  Even that one cent isn’t really “gross income” but I’m electing to call it that so that you can’t ignore my return by calling me a “nontaxayer” if I have zero for “gross income”.

8. Because I claim that all monies or revenues I earned other than the one cent appearing on my return are NOT “gross income”, then for those monies, I am classified as a “nontaxpayer” and therefore DO NOT have any kind of burden of proving that they are nontaxable under 26 U.S.C. 7491.  Instead, the burden of proving that any monies listed on any W-2 or 1099 forms you may have received about me are “taxable income” or “gross income” rests squarely and exclusively on you and only you.  Respect for my due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments demands that you and not me satisfy the burden of proving that these monies qualify as “taxable income” or “gross income”.  Any “presumptions” you might want to make to the contrary about this are hereby refuted and I demand evidence of both the law and the facts that validate any such false presumption.

9. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Manual section, you are NOT AUTHORIZED to prepare an amended or Substitute For Return (SFR) changing the “gross income” defined on my form 1040NR.  Such returns are only proposed assessment, but not actual legal assessments.  The GAO audit of the IRS in November 1999 documented in GAO report number GAO/GGD-00-60R entitled “Substitute for Returns Program” available on the website at:


quotes employees of the IRS officially stating, and I quote:

“In its response to this letter, IRS official indicated that they do not generally prepare actual tax returns.  Instead, they said IRS prepares substitute documents that propose assessments.  Although IRS and legislation refer to this as the substitute for return program, these officials said that the document does not look like an actual tax return.”
[Report, page 1]

10. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6020(b), IRS is not authorized to do an assessment under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code .  Only I, as the sovereign, can do a self-assessment.  No one but me can make me liable for the income tax.

11. There’s no liability statute anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code making me liable to pay any tax, and federal courts say one is required in order to collect a tax:

"To the extent that regulations implement the statute, they have the force and effect of law...The regulation implements the statute and cannot vitiate or change the statute..."
[Spreckles v. C.I.R., 119 F.2d, 667]

"..liability for taxation must clearly appear [from statute imposing tax]."
[Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)]

While Congress might have the power to place such a personal liability upon trust beneficiaries who did not renounce the trust, yet it would require clear expression of such intent, and it cannot be spelled out from language (as that here) which can be given an entirely natural and useful meaning and application excluding such intent."
[Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)]

"A tax is a legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin (37 Cyc. 724, 725), and, naturally, liability to taxation must be read in statute, or it does not exist."
[Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927) ]

"…the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability." 
[Terry  v. Bothke, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)]

The implementing regulation at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1 that uses the word “liable to” is null and void, because the Secretary of the Treasury is nowhere conferred the authority to legislate or make law or exceed the scope of the statute at 26 U.S.C. 1  that imposes the tax:

“When enacting 7206(1) Congress undoubtedly knew that the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, so long as they carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statutes.  Such regulations have the force of law.  The Secretary, however, does not have the power to make law, Dixon v. United States, supra.” 
[United States v. Levy, 533 F.2d 969 (1976)]

Therefore, any amount I indicate on my tax return as a natural person as “gross income” is nothing more than a method of making a “donation” to the federal government and cannot be classified as a “tax” without committing fraud.  As a matter of fact, it is FRAUD on the part of the IRS and the government to even call the “income tax” a “tax” in my case because nowhere in the Constitution is such as “tax” even authorized.  Without the specific authority of the Constitution, whatever you may do or propose to do under the “color of law”, including collecting a “voluntary” donation, is null, void, and unenforceable ab initio.

“We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison  wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Ibid. “ 
[U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]

Show me where your power to tax internal to the country and upon natural persons is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, because it didn’t come from the Constitution and it didn’t come from the Sixteenth Amendment ,

“…the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress XE "U.S. GOVERNMENT:Congress"  from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation [on corporations and businesses rather than individuals] to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation." 
[Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916)]

As a matter of fact, before the Sixteenth Amendment , the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) ruled that direct income taxes on biological people like me are unconstitutional, so what change in the constitution since that case in 1895 other than the Sixteenth Amendment modified that?  As the Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.  It will certainly cease to deserve that high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” 
[Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]

So where is not only the Constitutional authority for what you are doing, but also please provide the following as evidence of your personal authority:

11.1.Your Delegation order.

11.2.A copy of your Pocket Commission under IRM section 1.16.4 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

11.3.The source of your authority to exercise the equivalent of “police powers” as a federal agency within the borders of the sovereign union states.  The Supreme Court has ruled hundreds of times that the federal government has no police powers inside the borders of the states of the Union, and that is where I am writing to you from.  The act of collecting taxes is a police power.  Here is the definition of “police power” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1156:

Police power. An authority conferred by the American constitutional system in the Tenth Amendment, U.S. Const., upon the individual states, and, in turn, delegated to local governments, through which they are enabled to establish a special department of police; adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime, and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of the citizens by preserving the public order, preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws.

The power of the State to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health, and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity.  The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due process.  Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government.  Marshall v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1156]

12.It is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance on your part for you to be on the one hand effectively illegally soliciting donations and bribery from me under the “color of law” to then either attempt to penalize me illegally in the process or make demands about any aspect of the conditions under which I choose or volunteer to “donate”.  I simply refuse to “donate” if you refuse to let me decide the terms under which I can or will donate.  Compelled charity in that case would not be charity at all, but slavery disguised as charity.  Slavery is illegal under the Thirteenth Amendment.

13.I am not now and never have been a “fiduciary” for any entity or “income” (taxable or not) in any way and if you have records indicting the contrary, then I:

13.1.Have enclosed an IRS form 56 eliminating all such fiduciary relationships.

13.2. Demand that you send to me the authority by which such a relationship was established, because I never authorized it.  Failure to provide evidence of the existence of fiduciary duty within 30 days shall constitute a nihil dicit judgment under common law of the fact that none exists.

14.I am not now and never have been a “transferee” for U.S. government property as defined in 26 U.S.C. 6901  and I demand any evidence you might have that might suggest the contrary.  Failure to provide evidence of the existence of my status as a “transferee” within 30 days constitutes a nihil dicit judgment under common law establishing that I am not such a transferee.

15.The entirety of all my property and my estate is now classified and always has been classified as a “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31)  in regards to Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code and I demand any evidence you have that might suggest the contrary.  Failure to provide evidence suggesting that any part of my estate is not a foreign estate within 30 days constitutes a nihil dicit judgment under common law establishing that my estate is a foreign estate as legally defined.

16.The only reason you may have received any “taxes” that were either illegally withheld under Subtitle C or paid under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is because of the presence of duress and unlawful coercion against my property rights and my right to work by my employer, who I am very afraid to prosecute because I might lose my job.  He nevertheless deserves to be behind bars for his misdeeds.  You should interpret receipt of withholding monies by you from my employer as evidence of extortion, racketeering, and conspiracy against my property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.  For you to condone or encourage or permit such criminal conduct on the part of private employers makes you an accessory to extortion and racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 872  and 18 U.S.C. 225 .  Instead, as my fiduciary agent (see Public Law 96-303 , Executive Order 12731, and 5 C.F.R. 2635.101), you are duty-bound to right this wrong and return this unlawfully extorted money back to me.  If you don’t, I will prosecute you personally for

16.1. Breach of fiduciary duty in violation of Public Law 96-303, Executive Order 12731, and 5 C.F.R. 2635.101 .

16.2.RICO in violation of 18 U.S.C. 872

16.3. Peonage under Thirteenth Amendment, 18 U.S.C. 1581, and 42 U.S.C. 1994.

16.4.Bank robbery, if you attempt any Notice of Levies on me in violation of my Fifth Amendment rights.

16.5. Conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. 241.

16.6. Obstruction of justice, for not revealing the truth to me about this matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73.

17.This request for refund constitutes a Petition for Redress of Grievances protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The right to petition for redress CANNOT be penalized, taxed, controlled, or regulated in any way by the government because it is a right and not a privilege.  You cannot penalize me for exercising this constitutional right.

18.You are therefore not authorized by law to penalize me for submitting this “conditional self-assessment” because:

18.1.Of the constitutional constraint against Bills of Attainder found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3  of the U.S. Constitution

18.2.The definition of the term “person” in the context of the penalty regulations found in 26 C.F.R. 301.6671-1(b), which means only an employee of a corporation, and which I am not.  If you choose to try to illegally impose any penalties on this conditional assessment, then I demand evidence that I am an “employee of a corporation” as defined there.  If you penalize me in disregard of my due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, then you will be prosecuted under 26 U.S.C. 7433  for wrongful collection actions and also under the Constitution for violation of my inalienable Constitutional rights.  I shall pursue a writ of mandamus to have my property returned and have you FIRED for malfeasance, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

18.3.You would be compelling me under unlawful duress to commit fraud and make false statements on future filings in order to appease your illegal, irrational, and exortionary demands.

19. Don’t try to pull any scams with the word “includes” in your response because I know your game and it’s a violation of my due process rights to use ambiguous definitions or laws that are “void for vagueness”.  See the following for hard proof of this:

Either the law applies to me as a private individual or it doesn’t, and I’m not going to play word guessing games or engage in speculation about what either you or any federal judge who is both paid by the income tax and subservient to your organized extortion “thinks” the word “includes” implies.  If the law doesn’t explicitly identify me as a person “liable” for the tax as a private person residing in a union state and outside of your territorial jurisdiction, then I’m not responsible to subject myself to your harassment or your illegal attempts at racketeering and extortion in order to get me to “volunteer” under duress to pay a “tax” that I don’t owe.  Prove your authority using only the law or get out of my life, please.

20. The only difference between what you do and what the Mafia does is the authority of law, both in the Constitution and in the Statutes that implement the Constitution.  If you can’t show me the law that makes me responsible in clear and unambiguous terms, or you know what the law says and refuse to explain or justify the good faith basis for your belief, then:

20.1.I have no choice but to assume that you are the Mafia, and your inaction and negligent administration of the tax code was what earned you that name.

20.2.I must conclude that you are a Communist as defined in 50 U.S.C. 841, because the U.S. Congress in that section defines a “communist” as follows:

“Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory [lawful] limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.”

If you refuse to acknowledge or comply with or explain the lawful basis for your authority, then YOU ARE A COMMUNIST because you refuse to acknowledge or comply with lawful constraints upon your authority.  So show me the law that makes me liable and acknowledge the laws that limit and define your power to me or YOU ARE A COMMUNIST as the United States Congress defines it.

21. Without the explicit authority of Constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law combined making me “liable” and evidence of that lawful authority provided to me in satisfaction of my due process rights under the Constitution, any amount of money that you might attempt to extort from me is paid in violation of the following laws, which in effect makes me into a co-conspirator with you in the following serious felonies.  It also makes you into a money laundering operation for the extortion racket headed by our corrupted politicians:

21.1. 18 U.S.C. 201:  Bribery of public officials and witnesses.  I would be compelled to bribe my Congressman with monies extorted from me involuntarily.

21.2. 18 U.S.C. 597  Expenditures to Influence Voting.  The monies I involuntarily paid to the federal government absent Constitutional authority could be used by politicians to influence voters to vote for them because of some socialist benefit they might receive.

22.I cannot in good conscience subsidize any government activity that is not explicitly authorized by both the Constitution and the Statutes that implement it and a clear and explicit showing by the moving party (that is you) that jurisdiction exists as required by the Administrative Procedures Act , 5 U.S.C. 556(d).  To do otherwise or acquiesce otherwise would be to condone and subsidize criminal behavior by our government and by public servants in our government.  Such acquiescence would also constitute Treason against the Constitution in violation of Article III of the Constitution.  My military oath prevents me from any act of such Treason.  You cannot penalize me for honoring my Constitutional oath.

23. Silence or lack of response to all the demands in this legal notice after a 30 day period shall constitute acquiescence to all of the determinations and facts herein contained and will result in a Notice of Default served upon you with a Proof of Mailing provided by a registered Notary Public.

24. Don’t bother quoting any federal court cases below the Supreme Court in response to this legal notice because your own Internal Revenue Manual, section says that any ruling below the Supreme Court may not be applied to more than the single “taxpayer” in the case involved.  If you can’t follow your own written internal procedures, then why on earth should I do what you expect me to or even listen to you?

25. Don’t bother asserting jurisdiction based on my citizenship status because I am a “national” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) and have taken the necessary steps identified in 8 U.S.C. 1452 to establish myself as such and also as a “nonresident alien” not engaged in a "trade or business" (public office) for the purposes of the income tax as described in 26 C.F.R. 1.871-1(b)(i).

26.You may feel tempted to retaliate against this request for refund by overriding your IDRS system and manually entering bogus time-barred assessments against me that are back-dated.  Be advised that I am very familiar with how to decode my non-sanitized IMF file and if you do so, you will be prosecuted for fraud, put behind bars, and fired from the service for your misconduct if I have anything to say about it.

27.What the Lord requires of you in this case is to DO JUSTICE and to LOVE MERCY.  You can’t do either if you care more about stealing my money than you care about following the law and the Constitution, your own integrity, and about upholding the public trust and the Constitution that maintains the civil society that we both value.  Both of these biblical requirements, JUSTICE and MERCY, can be satisfied by refunding to me the money that was illegally sent to you under duress by my criminal employer, who forced me to pay a tax I didn’t voluntarily want to pay as a condition of employment.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?"
[Micah 6:8 , Bible, NKJV]

28.If you respond to this request for refund by providing the amount of refund requested, then under a nihil dicit judgment, you have consented that all other revenues and receipts received by me are NOT TAXABLE and NOT GROSS INCOME, and you agree that:

28.1.My estate is indeed a foreign estate as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31).

28.2.The only amount of “gross income” I earn is the amount that I say I earn, because none of what I make is legally defined as “gross income”.  Nowhere is any of the money that I earned as a private worker who is not a "public officer" of the United States legally classified as “gross income”.  I challenge you to provide any statute that concludes otherwise.  If you look in the annotated U.S. Code, 1928 edition, under 26 U.S.C. 954, you can clearly see that the definition of “gross income” has always meant, in the case of natural persons, only "public officers" of the United States government.  Obfuscation of the Internal Revenue Code by greedy lawyers in the Department of Treasury can’t change that fact either, because the Constitution hasn’t changed and it remains the definition and limitation of Congress’ power to tax.

28.3.You are forever estopped from proceeding against me in the future either administratively or in litigation for:

28.3.1. A return or civil suit for return of the monies you refunded to me.

28.3.2. Fraud or false statements in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7204 .

28.3.3. Failure to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7203.

If you find yourself unwilling or unable to consent to the above determinations in conjunction with the requested refund, please find a supervisor or other authority who has such delegated authority and have him sign the letter you enclose with your refund as an affidavit so that we can settle this matter and bar or estop any future criminal or civil litigation related to it.

29.If you don’t comply by providing to me the refund I am demanding under the authority of law, then I will see you in court and will show you the same amount of lack of mercy that you earned by refusing to be civil or accountable or helpful to members of the public like me who you are there to SERVE as a public servant.  I will personally make sure that you will reap exactly what you sow.  Remember, “Service” is the most important part of “Internal Revenue Service”, and I am the customer you exist to serve.  Making me your servant is the very definition of tyranny in a free country.

A word of caution is in order about the above approach.  We warn you throughout this book never to claim to be a “taxpayer” because it prejudices your rights.  The discussion above helps to show you how to avoid prejudicing your rights more than necessary when you claim to be a “taxpayer”.  We warn you that it is at best a triage measure designed as an expedient to help those of you who have been wronged by your private employers wrongfully withholding taxes from your pay against your wishes.  We are trying to show you how to undo that wrong and recover these illegally withheld taxes without prejudicing your rights and without the need to litigate.  Please be cautious and make sure you have read at least the first five chapters of this book before you attempt to claim a refund using the above technique.

We wish to conclude this section by revealing some very important implications of being a "nontaxpayer" that we need to be very aware of in order to avoid jeopardizing our status and creating a false presumption that we are a "taxpayer", which are summarized below:

1. You cannot quote any section of the Internal Revenue Code that requires you to be a "taxpayer" in order to claim its benefit.  For instance, 26 U.S.C. 7433, which purports to allow anyone to file a suit against an IRS agent for wrongful collection actions, says the following:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 76 > Subchapter B > 7433

7433. Civil damages for certain unauthorized collection actions

(a) In general

If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States. Except as provided in section 7432, such civil action shall be the exclusive remedy for recovering damages resulting from such actions.

Note the phrase above “with respect to a taxpayer”, which are no accident. If you are a “nontaxpayer”, then you have no recourse under the above statute.  HOWEVER, you still have recourse under the constitution for deprivation of property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.  If you filed a lawsuit against an IRS agent, your remedy would then have come from citing the Constitution and possibly also cite the criminal code, which is also positive law, but NOT any part of the I.R.C.

2. You cannot call the Internal Revenue Code "law" or a "statute", but only a "code" or a "title".  It can only be "law" if you are a "taxpayer".  What makes anything "law" is your consent, according to the Declaration of Independence, and calling the IRC "law" is an admission that you consent to its provisions and are subject to them.  See sections 5.4.1 through later for details on this scam.

3. You cannot fill out and submit any form that can only be used by “taxpayers” nor can you sign any form that uses the word “taxpayer” to identify you.  We have gone through and created substitute versions of most major IRS forms to remove such false presumptions from the forms at:

4. When you get an IRS notice that either calls you a “taxpayer” or uses a “Taxpayer Identification Number” (TIN), then the notice is in error and you have a duty to bring this to the attention of the IRS.  Only “taxpayers” can have a TIN.  Below is an example form which satisfies this purpose:
Wrong Party Notice, Form #07.105

5.  You must include the following language in all your correspondence with the taxing authorities in order to emphasize your status as a "nontaxpayer":

I look forward to being corrected promptly in anything you believe is inconsistent with reality found in this correspondence or any of its attachments.  If you do not respond, I shall conclude that you believe I am a “nontaxpayer” who is neither subject to nor liable for any internal revenue tax.

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

"The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital."
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238(1922)]

I remind you that your own IRS mission statement says that you can only help “taxpayers” to understand their tax responsibilities and therefore, if you won’t talk with me, the only thing I can logically conclude is that I must not be a “taxpayer” and instead am a “nontaxpayer” not subject to any provision within the I.R.C.  In that case, thank you for confirming that I am person outside your jurisdiction and not “liable” for any internal revenue tax:

Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), Section  (02-26-1999)
IRS Mission and Basic Organization

The IRS Mission: Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.

6. Any IRS publication addressed to “taxpayers” isn’t meant for you and you cannot rely upon it.  For instance, IRS Publication 1 is entitled Your Rights as a Taxpayer.  The title of this publication is an oxymoron:  Taxpayers don’t have rights!  A “nontaxpayer” cannot cite this pamphlet as authority for defending his rights.  We called the IRS and asked them if they have an equivalent pamphlet for “nontaxpayers” and they said no.  Then we asked whether the rights mentioned in the pamphlet also apply to “nontaxpayers” and they reluctantly said “yes”.  Someone wrote an “improved” version of this pamphlet entitled Your Rights as a Nontaxpayer which you may wish to read at:


Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship Last revision: 8/16/09
   Home  About  Contact This private system is NOT subject to monitoring